JUDGMENT : P.S. Patankar, J. 1. The two questions which arise for any consideration in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are - (i) whether the Court below was right in passing the decree of eviction under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act) subletting, and (ii) under section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act i.e. erecting any permanent structure without the consent of the landlord. 2. A few facts are as follows :- The petitioner is the original defendant No. 2 who died during the pendency of this petition and his heirs brought on record. The respondent No. 1 was the landlord. Respondent No. 2 was the defendant No. 1 - Original tenant and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of the original petitioner. The premises are block No. 5 admeasuring 13' x 10.3' and block No. 6 consisting of two apartments from property bearing survey No. 18/3, Manowarie, Solaput Road, Pune Cantonment. The suit premises came to be leased out to respondent No. 2 for the purpose of conducting hotel business. The respondent No. 2 was conducting the restaurant in the name and style of "Lucy Restaurant". The monthly rent was Rs. 35/- excluding the education cess, electricity and water charges which were to be borne by the tenant. The landlord issued the notice to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 dated 14.8.1975 terminating the tenancy. It was inter alia, alleged that the respondent No. 2 has unlawfully sub-let the premises to the petitioner and that the petitioner has carried out permanent construction or made material alterations and additions in the suit premises. It was not replied. The respondent No. 1 therefore filed the suit for getting possession of the suit premises. 3. The trial Court, inter alia, recorded the finding that the respondent No. 2 has not made any permanent construction in the suit premises. However, material additions and alterations were made by the petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 2. It was further held that the respondent No. 2 has unlawfully sub-let the suit premises to the petitioner and thereby illegally profiteering. A decree for possession came to be passed. The same came to be challenged on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It was further held that the respondent No. 2 has unlawfully sub-let the suit premises to the petitioner and thereby illegally profiteering. A decree for possession came to be passed. The same came to be challenged on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The learned Extra Assistant Judge, Pune, by his order dated 4.10.1982 held that the respondent No. 2 was the tenant of the premises. He negatived the contention that there was any partnership between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. He came to the conclusion that the premises were sub-let by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner after 1960 and, therefore, there was unlawful sub-letting. He also held that material additions and alterations were made by the petitioner at the instance of respondent No. 2. He came to the conclusion that the petitioner has constructed a cement concrete water tank. The decree for possession was confirmed. The said judgment and order is under challenge in this petition. 4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that assuming the finding recorded by the Court below is correct, even then the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Section 15(2) read with Section 14(1) of the Bombay Rent Act as introduced by Maharashtra Act 18/87 and it cannot be said that there was any unlawful sub-tenancy. He further submitted that mere construction of cement tank cannot be said to be a permanent structure. It was obviously built for better enjoyment of the suit premises. He pointed out that even the Court below has not come to the conclusion that there was any permanent structure made by the petitioner. The finding is only that there was material additions and alteration made. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 1 supported the judgment and order passed by the Court below and further submitted that this Court should not interfere in this petition and the petitioner cannot get benefit of amended provision in this petition. 5. It was the case of the petitioner in the plaint that the respondent No. 2 was the tenant and he has sub-let the suit premises to the petitioner after 1960. In the evidence recorded on behalf of the respondent No. 1 it was stated that sub-letting took place sometime in 1962. 5. It was the case of the petitioner in the plaint that the respondent No. 2 was the tenant and he has sub-let the suit premises to the petitioner after 1960. In the evidence recorded on behalf of the respondent No. 1 it was stated that sub-letting took place sometime in 1962. The question that arises is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Section 15(2) read with Section 14(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. Section 15(2) came to be amended by amending the Act Maharashtra Act 18 of 1987 which inserted the date 1.2.1973 as the material date of consideration of sub-tenancy. Similar amendment came to be made in Section 14(1) which gives protection to certain sub-tenants and licensees and who can become tenant on the termination to tenancy. Again the date came to be inserted was 1.2.1973. The Division Bench of this Court in Prabhulal Chhogalal Mandore v. Bastiram Himatram Bhutada and another, 1990 Bombay Rent Cases 472, held that if the sub-tenancy is created prior to 1.2.1973, then such sub-tenant is protected in view of Section 14(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. The Division Bench also held in the said case that in view of Section 25 of the Maharashtra Act 18 of 1987, the petitioner whose petition is pending in this Court under Article 227 can get the benefit of the Amending Act. There is another judgment of the single Judge Somnath Gyanu Waghchaure and others v. Mrs. Malatibai Gajanan Mhatre and other, 1989 Mah RCJ 523. There is also one more reported judgment in Lakhichand Punamchand Marwadi and others v. Thakurnath Kalasaheb Barse, 1990(3) BCR 511, taking the same view. This view is followed by various other Single Judges of this Court including myself in Writ Petition No. 4088 of 1981 dated 30th/31st October, 1995. Therefore, the petitioner shall be entitled to get protection of Section 15(2) read with Section 14(1) of the Bombay Rent Act and cannot be evicted. 6. The next question that arises is whether the petitioner has constructed any permanent structure without consent of the landlord. First it is to noted that the Court below has not come to such a conclusion. It is only held that there was material additions and alterations made by the petitioner. 6. The next question that arises is whether the petitioner has constructed any permanent structure without consent of the landlord. First it is to noted that the Court below has not come to such a conclusion. It is only held that there was material additions and alterations made by the petitioner. The material additions and alterations alleged by the respondent No. 1 were that (1) the petitioner has constructed a water tank in the kitchen of the restaurant. It was in cement concrete. (2) He has fixed the steel grills in front portion on cement concrete slab. In the evidence, respondent No. 1 tried to state that the petitioner has changed the tiled roof and put up tarpaulin and corrugated iron sheets. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is right in pointing out that it was not the case of the respondent No. 1 in the plaint, that the petitioner has changed the roof and it cannot be considered. He is also right in submitting that even assuming that the petitioner has made such a change from tiled roof to putting up corrugated iron sheets and tarpaulin, it cannot be said that there was any permanent structure erected by the petitioner. 7. Even the Courts below have not accepted that putting up iron grills in the front portion by laying the concrete slab and changing the old wooden one would amount to material additions and alterations. Obviously, changing the grills from wooden grills to steel grills cannot be said to be a permanent structure. The question is whether the construction of concrete cement water tank in the kitchen of the restaurant can amount to erection of permanent structure. The said water tank was 6' x 5' having height of 4'. The learned Advocate for the petitioner pointed out that this was obviously constructed so as to enjoy the suit premises in a better manner. It cannot be said to be a permanent one. He also relied upon the Judgment of this Court in Parvati Kevalram Moorjani v. Mahanlal Anraj Porwal and others, 1988(1) RCR 678 (Bom) : 1987 MLJ 917. In the said case, the tenant had erected a water tank on the open space adjoining the premises in his possession without permission of the landlord. The question that arose was whether the landlord was entitled to get a decree under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. In the said case, the tenant had erected a water tank on the open space adjoining the premises in his possession without permission of the landlord. The question that arose was whether the landlord was entitled to get a decree under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. The finding recorded shows that it was an everhead cement concrete tank and had been placed on cement pillars and these cement pillars had been embedded in earth. It was held that the tenant is not liable for eviction under section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act as the erection of water tank was not a permanent construction. It was held that merely because the bricks and cement had been used for constructing the water tank admeasuring 5' x 8', that by itself would not render it a permanent construction. It was observed that it cannot be disputed that the water tank erected by the tenant was for the better enjoyment and beneficial use of the tenanted premises. There is no change in the user which is already being carried out in the premises. Moreover, the nature of the construction is such that it can be removed by dismantling and no damage to the demised premises would be caused in such a process. "Even if the test of intention of the tenant is applied, it will be difficult to conclude that the tenant intended to erect a permanent structure." This can squarely be applied to the facts of the present case. In addition, there is nothing to show that it was of permanent character. Therefore, in my opinion, no decree can be passed in favour of the respondent No. 1 under Section 13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act. Hence the following under :- Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (b) of the Petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute.